TIME EXPLAINED (v2.1)

[Farsight]

This is good feedback pryzk. Thanks.

Actually, it's just consistency. You should be very worried if you'd derived that periods were not units of time, starting from the assumption that they were.

The assumption is what I'm digging into. I'm asking what time actually is, and the official definition simply says it's time. It's not enough.

Well, time would be useless to physics if nothing varied over it, and could therefore disappear as a parameter. That's hardly a revelation.

That's the point of what I'm saying. Things vary over it. Without variation, change, motion, where's the time? Time is a measure of it, and it doesn't make sense to talk about moving through a measure of motion.

"Fast" and "slow" (and their synonyms) are used to describe the rates of processes in general - not just motion. You can talk about a liquid evaporating quickly, or an object absorbing heat slowly. Granted, motion is involved in both these examples, but in neither case is it of direct interest. Anyway, there's no point arguing about terminology.

It's of great interest to me. The language we use when we talk about time reinforces those assumptions I'm challenging, and I'm asserting that the terminology is wrong.

I don't know of a definition of "dimension" that includes "freedom of movement". Actually, temperature would still be called a dimension in the sense it used to be. The term has two definitions in common use:

One (in mathematics), denotes the cardinal of any basis of a given vector space (it also appears in related contexts). When physicist talk about "three dimensional space" or "four-dimensional space-time", it means they're modelling space and space-time with three and four dimensional vector spaces, respectively.

The other (in physics) loosely means "quantity" - basically anything with a unit. Length, time, temperature, intensity, energy, volume, mass, acceleration, and power are all dimensions in this sense.

Thanks for that. I'd say that a lot of people who assume the mathematical definition, where the mathematical space causes a problem. It is simply not the same as real space. You can move around in real space. That's why it's space, to move around in. You can't do this with in time. Hence whilst I think it's reasonable to talk about 3+1 dimensions, IMHO talking of 4 dimensions is taking the mathematical model too literally.

Special relativity tells us that the laws of physics are Lorentz invariant. Inevitable consequences of this are that moving processes will slow down and contract in the direction of motion with respect to stationary ones. What space and time do is subject to your definitions of the base units of space and time...

It takes seven years as seen in one reference frame, and one year as seen in another.

No problem. I'll maybe tighten the wording here.

You aren't implying a preferred reference frame, are you?

I am rather. I haven't dwelt on it because the "aether" I end up with is not generally acceptable. Instead I find myself increasingly disatisfied with reference frames.

Um, the twin "paradox" is a result of faulty logic. It doesn't need an explanation - just the flaw pointed out (in short, the contradiction is reached by applying properties specific to inertial reference frames to a non-inertial reference frame).

See comment above about reference frames. People tend to struggle with the Twins Paradox because they're missing something in terms of clarity and explanation.

Evolution to what?

Spacetime is a Space. Maybe I need to quote more history to demonstrate this. Point taken.

Why is it a problem that all observers are stationary with respect to themselves? In a reference frame attached to the Earth and rotating with the Earth, the Sun goes round the Earth once every 24 hours. Why is this a problem?

Because people used to burn heretics who said the Earth goes round the Sun?

(Farsight: They don’t explain why the speed of light is always the same). A consequence of the Lorentz invariance of the laws of physics.

No. Emphatically no. You are confusing cause and effect. The effect is that we always measure c to be the same value. The law is not the cause. Look into this some more, it's axiomatic. Dig past it.

Anyway, no matter what theory anyone comes up with, you can always ask why things are the way they are. Accusing a theory of not explaining and only describing is pointless; every theory has its axioms.

It really isn't pointless. It's the whole point. Saying the speed of light is always the same because it's a "law of physics" does not satisfy my curiosity. It shouldn't satisfy yours either. I want to know why it's a law of physics, I want to know what lies beneath.

You're mixing frames. The speed of an object relative to an observer is the distance travelled in the observer's reference frame per unit of time elapsed, again, in the observer's reference frame. You are measuring the distance travelled over the proper time. This gives the space-like component of the Minkowski four-velocity of a particle (which does become infinite for anything travelling at the speed of light).

Where? I rather thought I was saying here about speed tallied with your response - if there's an infinity, the maths blows up.

The definition of length isn't derived from velocity in general - just the motion of light. There's nothing circular about defining the velocity of, say, a car to be the distance it travels divided by the time taken. The unit of distance is not defined by the motion of the car. You're right that, technically, you can substitute the definition of distance into the definition of velocity, but this is of no practical use and doesn't actually say anything new about velocity. Defining the metre as "the distance travelled by light in 1/299792458 seconds" is only done for the convenience of giving c an exact integer value. There aren't any particularly remarkable conclusions to be drawn from this.

Noted. I'm not quite happy with the velocity aspect here, and may revisit it. But I've drawn a fairly remarkable conclusion in a later essay - that the world is in essence "painted in light".

For every second that passes, one second certainly passes. I'll let you decide for yourself whether you want to call that "travelling" or not.

No. That's axiomatic and wrong terminology. It matters. A second elapses. It doesn't pass. Time isn't moving and there's no moving through it, and no travelling.

Local time as opposed to what, exactly?

Maybe I should make this clearer. Two clock collide at the same location, they are utterly local, but show different "local" times. It's a contradiction in terms.

1) What's "negative motion"? Definition (preferably precise and mathematical), please.

I can't. You can't either. You could give a mathematical definition, but it won't stand up in the real world.

2) How did you conclude that travelling backwards in time would require something that, according to you, is impossible by definition?

I'm not clear what you mean here. Maybe the only way to "travel in time" is to move everything back to where it used to be. To reverse the motions. But those reversed motions are still motions rather than negative motions. It comes back to the recurrent theme that there's no motion through time because time is the measure of motion through space.

 

[Farsight]

Modeling the laws of physics using geometry and the World Line concept are models considered isomorphic with reality, not reality itself. Perhaps an analogy with Tic Tac Toe and a simple game might help...

Modeling the laws of physics as geometry and the world line concept are useful models. They are isomorphic with reality (to some extent), but no knowledgeable physicist claims that they are realities.

Noted Dinosaur. I think geometry is hugely important in physics. I've always been intrigued by Einstein's desire to replace the "base wood" of matter with the "pure marble" of geometry. I think I know how to get there. But to do it, we've got to drop the time out of spacetime and go back to 3 dimensions of space. I think it's fine to talk about 3+1 dimensions, because time still matters. But some people insist on 4 dimensions, the total equivalence between space and time, and the literal geometry of a Minkowski block universe. I think they confuse mathematical space with actual space, and the model with the reality. And I would hazard a guess that some of these people consider themselves to be knowledgeable physicists.

 

[Dinosaur]

Farsight: I am not sure that the mathematics treats space & time as equivalent.

. . . But some people insist on 4 dimensions, the total equivalence between space and time . . .

Note that when using Polar or Spherical coordinates, there are dimensions measured as angles instead of as distance. I think this is analgous to relativity mathematics: The time variable (or dimension) is treated differently from the space variables (or dimensions).

I have seen methods using i (square root of minus one) and light speed units with the time variable to make the time variable (dimension) seem like the space variables. I am not sure, but I think this is a gimmick and the time dimension is still not quite equivalent to the space dimensions.

I would not bet real money on the above opinion, but I think it is close to making sense.

 

[Farsight]

Noted re Polar co-ordinates, Dinosaur. It squares with measuring velocity in degrees, see essay. The time dimension is definitely not equivalent to the space dimensions. You need a minus t to work out a "spacetime distance", but some people tend to forget about that whilst still thinking of a spacetime distance as a spatial distance.

 

[przyk]

The assumption is what I'm digging into. I'm asking what time actually is, and the official definition simply says it's time. It's not enough.

Well what else are you going to define it in terms of? Time isn't something you can grab and study under the microscope, and there's nothing like it we can compare it with. I don't think you can really define time - just try to make the measurement of it as consistent as possible. You can't define everything.

That's the point of what I'm saying. Things vary over it. Without variation, change, motion, where's the time? Time is a measure of it, and it doesn't make sense to talk about moving through a measure of motion.

If you're technical about it, then you're measuring the rate of one process with respect to another. Except that when you do that, you need to make comparisons the states of the two processes at the same time. So far, you've taken simultaneity for granted.

It's of great interest to me. The language we use when we talk about time reinforces those assumptions I'm challenging, and I'm asserting that the terminology is wrong.

You've got this strange idea that anyone who uses term A in contexts X and Y can't tell the difference between X and Y. Do you really believe that anyone who talks about clocks running slowly can't tell the difference between motion through space and time dilation (or a defective clock)? Where did you get that impression?

Thanks for that. I'd say that a lot of people who assume the mathematical definition, where the mathematical space causes a problem. It is simply not the same as real space. You can move around in real space. That's why it's space, to move around in. You can't do this with in time. Hence whilst I think it's reasonable to talk about 3+1 dimensions, IMHO talking of 4 dimensions is taking the mathematical model too literally.

No-one claims space and time are identical. The "-1" in the Minkowski metric is common knowledge, at least among those who have actually studied the subject. And as I'm sure you've learned in primary school, 4 = 3 + 1, and is two syllables less to pronounce.

You seem to be seeing a lot of misconceptions where they don't exist.

I am rather. I haven't dwelt on it because the "aether" I end up with is not generally acceptable. Instead I find myself increasingly disatisfied with reference frames.

What trouble are you having with reference frames?

See comment above about reference frames. People tend to struggle with the Twins Paradox because they're missing something in terms of clarity and explanation.

People struggle with the twin paradox because they have misconceptions regarding special relativity. As usual, education is the cure.

Because people used to burn heretics who said the Earth goes round the Sun?

What does that have to do with anything? Maybe I've missed your point here.

No. Emphatically no. You are confusing cause and effect. The effect is that we always measure c to be the same value. The law is not the cause. Look into this some more, it's axiomatic. Dig past it.

If all the laws of physics are Lorentz invariant, then a particle measured to be propagating at c by one inertial observer will also be measured to move at c by any other inertial observer employing the same method as a result of this. I assure you I have no misconceptions as far as this is concerned.

NB: I'm not offering an explanation for Lorentz invariance. That really seems to be "just the way it is".

It really isn't pointless. It's the whole point. Saying the speed of light is always the same because it's a "law of physics" does not satisfy my curiosity. It shouldn't satisfy yours either. I want to know why it's a law of physics, I want to know what lies beneath.

And what guarantee do you have that your curiosity is, in fact, satisfiable? Also keep in mind that science aims for objectivity - and that includes objective goals. Satisfying curiosity is not an objective goal.

Where? I rather thought I was saying here about speed tallied with your response - if there's an infinity, the maths blows up.

For the Minkowski four-speed, yes, it blows up. There aren't any problems with the classical speed. When we say light travels 300 million metres in one second, who's second do you think this is referring to? Clearly not the photon's.

No. That's axiomatic and wrong terminology. It matters. A second elapses. It doesn't pass. Time isn't moving and there's no moving through it, and no travelling.

Again, because I use the same word in two contexts, you jump to the conclusion I don't know the difference between the two? Seriously, cut it out. It's irritating.

Maybe I should make this clearer. Two clock collide at the same location, they are utterly local, but show different "local" times. It's a contradiction in terms.

They show accumulated proper time (or "age", if you like). If after the collision they remain stationary, they will continue to tick at the same rate. Where's the problem?

I can't. You can't either. You could give a mathematical definition, but it won't stand up in the real world.

Keep this statement of yours in the back of your mind:

If you think you understand something but you can’t explain it, then you don’t understand it.

 

[Farsight]

Well what else are you going to define it in terms of?

A relative measure of events or change or motion.

Time isn't something you can grab and study under the microscope, and there's nothing like it we can compare it with. I don't think you can really define time - just try to make the measurement of it as consistent as possible. You can't define everything.

"Define" is the wrong word here. Maybe that's just a slip of the tongue on your part, but I'm trying to understand the things that people often treat as definitive and axiomatic.

If you're technical about it, then you're measuring the rate of one process with respect to another. Except that when you do that, you need to make comparisons the states of the two processes at the same time.

Noted and agreed. But note that at the same time is only definable in terms of some other third process serving as a benchmark.

So far, you've taken simultaneity for granted.

I think I haven't. See the quote about A and B in the essay.

You've got this strange idea that anyone who uses term A in contexts X and Y can't tell the difference between X and Y. Do you really believe that anyone who talks about clocks running slowly can't tell the difference between motion through space and time dilation (or a defective clock)? Where did you get that impression?

You're better than most. Many people do get confused.

No-one claims space and time are identical. The "-1" in the Minkowski metric is common knowledge, at least among those who have actually studied the subject. And as I'm sure you've learned in primary school, 4 = 3 + 1, and is two syllables less to pronounce. You seem to be seeing a lot of misconceptions where they don't exist.

Some people have them.

What trouble are you having with reference frames?

See the sidetrack thread where I was talking to Pete and my RELATIVITY+ reply.

People struggle with the twin paradox because they have misconceptions regarding special relativity. As usual, education is the cure.

Agreed.

Farsight: Because people used to burn heretics who said the Earth goes round the Sun? What does that have to do with anything? Maybe I've missed your point here.

If you take reference frames to their extreme you will use the reference frame of the earth and say the sun goes round the earth. When people first said the earth actually goes round the sun, they called them blasphemers and heretics.

Farsight: No. Emphatically no. You are confusing cause and effect. The effect is that we always measure c to be the same value. The law is not the cause. Look into this some more, it's axiomatic. Dig past it. If all the laws of physics are Lorentz invariant, then a particle measured to be propagating at c by one inertial observer will also be measured to move at c by any other inertial observer employing the same method as a result of this. I assure you I have no misconceptions as far as this is concerned.

Your misconception is that the law is the final word. You aren't asking why.

NB: I'm not offering an explanation for Lorentz invariance. That really seems to be "just the way it is".

And "just the way it is" is just not good enough for me.

And what guarantee do you have that your curiosity is, in fact, satisfiable? Also keep in mind that science aims for objectivity - and that includes objective goals. Satisfying curiosity is not an objective goal.

I hope my curiosity is never satisfied. And come on, curiosity is what drives us. Are you being paid to post on this board? Are you doing it for some objective goal?

For the Minkowski four-speed, yes, it blows up. There aren't any problems with the classical speed. When we say light travels 300 million metres in one second, who's second do you think this is referring to? Clearly not the photon's.

Anybody's second. Everybody's second, no matter how "long" their seconds are. Because they're always 300 million metres long by definition.

Again, because I use the same word in two contexts, you jump to the conclusion I don't know the difference between the two? Seriously, cut it out. It's irritating.

Sorry. But you know how important I think the words are. As an exercise, try not using any words that suggest that "time is a length" or "time flows". It's surprisingly difficult.

Farsight: Two clock collide at the same location, they are utterly local, but show different "local" times. It's a contradiction in terms. They show accumulated proper time (or "age", if you like). If after the collision they remain stationary, they will continue to tick at the same rate. Where's the problem?

You can't have two different local times at one locale. You might think this pedantic, but again, I think the words are important. Semantics are important. Meaning is important.

Keep this statement of yours in the back of your mind: Farsight: If you think you understand something but you can’t explain it, then you don’t understand it.

That's why I've written these essays and why I'm asking for feedback. Do I understand it? I think I do. But if there's one thing all this has taught me, it's that people think they understand something when actually they don't. I can't rule myself out of this.

 

[przyk]

A relative measure of events or change or motion.

Well, if you like to see it that way. Personally I'd rather take time as axiomatic and use that to define motion than take motion as axiomatic and use it to define time, but that's just me.

"Define" is the wrong word here. Maybe that's just a slip of the tongue on your part, but I'm trying to understand the things that people often treat as definitive and axiomatic.

No, "define" is exactly what I meant.

Noted and agreed. But note that at the same time is only definable in terms of some other third process serving as a benchmark.

No, that doesn't help. You've still got to compare each of your processes with your third "at the same time".

If you take reference frames to their extreme you will use the reference frame of the earth and say the sun goes round the earth. When people first said the earth actually goes round the sun, they called them blasphemers and heretics.

So... what? The use of reference frames in which the Sun goes around the Earth should be banned out of respect for those accused of blasphemy and heresy by the Catholic church five centuries ago?

Your misconception is that the law is the final word. You aren't asking why.

Why the law is the way it is? For all I know it could be because the invisible magic pixies that push particles around in our universe worship a pixie god who just happens to like Lorentz invariance. Seriously, I'm not going to try answering a question like this unless I've got something solid to go on. The temptation, otherwise, is to invent a pseudoscientific backstory to observed physical laws that isn't of any use to anyone, and I really don't want to go there.

And "just the way it is" is just not good enough for me.

Sooner or later you're going to find laws that are "just the way the universe works" at the limits of our understanding of the universe, with no way of pushing back those limits. I'm open to the possibility that we aren't there yet as far as Lorentz invariance is concerned, but I'm not counting on it.

I hope my curiosity is never satisfied. And come on, curiosity is what drives us. Are you being paid to post on this board? Are you doing it for some objective goal?

I'm driven by a desire to understand, and that includes understanding exactly what it is I'm looking for.

Anybody's second. Everybody's second, no matter how "long" their seconds are. Because they're always 300 million metres long by definition.

You just pointed out yourself that if you divide the 300 million metres a photon travels by the zero seconds of proper time that elapse, you get an infinite result. The velocity of anything in a particular reference frame is the distance travelled in a particular reference frame divided by the time taken in the same reference frame the distance was measured in. You don't just divide any old distance by any time.

By the way, I suggest we forget about the metre's current definition as the distance light travels in a certain fraction of a second. It's a technical detail that doesn't affect the physics and unnecessarily complicates the discussion. c appears invariant because the metre transformed from one reference frame to another the same way by all its past definitions - not just the current one.

Sorry. But you know how important I think the words are. As an exercise, try not using any words that suggest that "time is a length" or "time flows". It's surprisingly difficult.

Taking away from a person's everyday vocabulary always makes things more difficult. As far as the two expressions you mentioned go, I usually talk of time "intervals" rather than "lengths", and I usually talk of the variation of something over time.

You can't have two different local times at one locale. You might think this pedantic, but again, I think the words are important. Semantics are important. Meaning is important.

You can have as many local times as you want at one locale. Just wear two wristwatches and set one forward an hour. Neither watch will show a more "real" time than the other.

That's why I've written these essays and why I'm asking for feedback. Do I understand it? I think I do. But if there's one thing all this has taught me, it's that people think they understand something when actually they don't. I can't rule myself out of this.

That's why I insist on objectivity so much. It's the best defence against misconceptions, and what makes the difference between universal truth and personal opinion.

 

[kwhilborn]

Good Job Farsight! Perception, Perception. I have my own theories about heat though. Very deep, read it twice, haven't done that since reading hawkins. I think you are correct.

 

[Farsight]

kwhilborn: Thanks. Much appreciated.

pryzk: perhaps we'll have to agree to differ on the points above. When I see "axiomatic" or "defined" or "law" or "that's just how it is", I'm reminded of religion:

Child: Who created the world, Daddy?
Parent: Why, God created the world, my son.
Child: What is God Daddy?
Parent: God surpasses all human understanding my son.
Child: Who created God, Daddy?
Parent: Oh shut up you stupid kid.

I think we see an element of this even in science. It's human nature. You don't have to answer the question about that Pixie God. But you should ask it. I think you should also ask yourself why you can have more than one local time at one locale and neither is real. I think you should ask if c only appears to be invariant. If you prefer not to, that's up to you. I've asked myself these questions, because I really do want to understand. And I've worked out what I think are the answers. You might not like them, that's up to you. I rather think it's because you don't like the questions. You want time to be axiomatic. You don't want it to be "explained". But thanks nevertheless for your feedback on this essay. It has been of some value.

PS: No, we shouldn't ban a reference frame where the sun goes round the earth. But we should never forget Bruno

 

[Tom2]

Farsight, you're being silly. When przyk says that Lorentz invariance is "just the way it is", there is no comparison to be drawn to religious proclamations. That is because Lorentz invariance is what is observed. If you don't understand the difference between statements made on the basis of observation and statements made on the basis of blind faith, then you simply have no understanding of science.

 

[Farsight]

No I'm not Tom. We observe colour. But atoms don't have the property of red or green or blue. Read the opening paragraphs of the essay.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=60883

I take great pains to say the things we observe are not necessarily the things that are there in the world we're trying to understand. Read what I said, think about it, then look at your post again.

 

[(Q)]

No I'm not ...Read the opening paragraphs of the essay...then look at your post again.

By continually repeating this mantra, you not only NOT learn anything, you insult those who've already read your silly posts and are trying to teach you something. They are the ones who actually know what they're talking about. They are trying to benefit YOU. Why aren't you listening?

 

[Farsight]

Can we try to keep this an alpha thread please? Pete, can you assist by changing the title?

 

[Dan (Edmond)]

Time is nothing more than a man-made thought to help us deal with reality. This conflicts with why I do not believe (although I am not sure) that it is possible to travel through time.
What we know as time... is, in my oppinion, just the advancement of reality.

It is hard to explain on a forum,
it is just the advancement of reality. It is a timeline (excuse the pun) that cannot be rewinded, because reality just advances.

Don't take this as an insult, I am not sure about this, as I still have yet to learn many things in science.

--------------------------------Signature

I am a strange, 13 year old loop.

 

[BenTheMan]

Time is nothing more than a man-made thought to help us deal with reality.

One thing for you to know is, although I sound cocky saying this, it is the truth, and for you to know, I am a genius.

These two statements are incompatible. Read this article, and rethink your signature.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/health/011800hth-behavior-incompetents.html

 

[Cyperium]

Time is very simple, once you get it. But “getting it” is very difficult. That’s because your current concept of time is so deeply ingrained. You form a mental map of the world using your senses and your brain. You use this mental map to think, and you are so immersed in it that you can’t see things the way they really are. You are locked into an irrational conviction that clocks run, that days pass, and that journeys take a length of time.

It takes an open mind, and logic to break out of this conditioning. First of all we need to look at your senses and the things you experience. Let’s start with sight. Look at the picture below, or (edit) better still follow the link:

http://www.echalk.co.uk/amusements/OpticalIllusions/colourPerception/colourPerception.html

The central portions of the two crosses are the same colour. You think the one on the left is grey and the one on the right is yellow. Not true. Tear a small hole in a piece of paper to make a peephole to mask out the context. Hold it up to one image after the other, and you realise that the central portion of the right-hand image really is grey. The yellow was the illusion. What does this tell you? It tells you that something you took for granted is not true. And it should remind you that a photon doesn’t have a colour. It has a wavelength, an oscillation, a motion.

Let’s move on to sound. Imagine a super-evolved alien bat with a large number of ears, like a fly’s eye. This bat would “see” using sound, and if it was sufficiently advanced it might even see in colour. But we know that sound is pressure waves, and when we look beyond this at the air molecules, we know that sound relies on motion.

Pressure is related to sound, and to touch. You feel it in your ears on a plane, or on your chest if you dive. You can feel it when I shake your hand. But you know you can’t measure the pressure of an atom, because pressure isn’t a fundamental property of the sub-atomic world. It’s a derived effect, and the Kinetic Theory of Gases tells us it’s derived from motion.

How about kinetic energy? A cannonball in space travelling at 1000m/s has kinetic energy. If it impacted your chest you would feel it. But apologies, my mistake. It isn't the cannonball doing 1000m/s. It's you. So where's the kinetic energy now? Can you feel it coursing through your veins? No. Because what’s really there is mass, and relative motion.

You can also feel heat. Touch that pretty stove and sizz, you feel heat. We talk about heat exchangers and heat flow as if there’s some magical mysterious fluid in there. And yet we know there isn’t. We know that heat is another derived effect of motion.

Taste is chemical in nature, and primitive. Most of your sense of taste is really your sense of smell. Do you know how smell works? Look up olfaction and you’ll learn about molecular shape. But the latest theory from a guy called Luca Turin says it’s all down to molecular vibration, not shape, because isomers smell the same. That’s motion again.

The point of all this is there’s a lot of motion out there, and most of your senses are motion detectors. But it never occurred to you because you’re accustomed to thinking about the world in terms of how you experience it, rather than the scientific, empirical, fundamental, ontological things that are there. And nowhere is this more so than with time.

So, what is time? Let’s start by looking up the definition of a second:

Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0K…

So, a second is nine billion periods of radiation. Now, what’s a period? We know that radiation is basically light, so let’s have a look at frequency:

Frequency = 1 / T and Frequency = v / λ

So frequency is the reciprocal of the period T, and also velocity v divided by wavelength λ. No problem. Flipping things around, we see that period T is wavelength λ divided by velocity v. We know that a wavelength is a distance, a thing like a metre:

The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second...

And we all know that velocity is a distance divided by a time. So a period is a distance divided by a distance divided by a time. The result is another period of time. This definition of time is circular and tells us nothing. How do we define it? Let’s look at frequency again:

Frequency is the measurement of the number of times that a repeated event occurs per unit of time.

So frequency is a number of events per second. And a second is a number of some other events. The interval between events is measured in terms of other events. And the interval between those events is measured in terms of other events. Until there are no events left, only intervals. And intervals are frozen timeless moments. For time is a measure of events, of change, measured by and against some other change. And for things to change, something, somewhere, somehow, has to have motion. You don’t need time to have motion. You need motion to have time.

We measured nine billion oscillation events and defined that as a second. We counted events. We counted motions. One, two, three, four, five… nine billion. Mark that down as a second. But you don’t have to count the motion in an atomic clock. You could count beans in a bucket. Ping, ping, ping, chuck them in, regular as clockwork.

You’re sitting there counting beans into the bucket, ping, ping, ping. Now, what is the direction of time? The only direction that is actually there, is the direction of the beans you’re throwing. “Fuller Bucket” is not the direction of time. “More Beans" is not the direction of time. The direction of your time is the direction of your counting, and I could have asked you to count them out of the bucket. There is no “Arrow of Beans”. There is no “Arrow of Time”. That’s just an illusion, as imaginary as the direction you take when you count along the set of integers.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 →

So why do we say things like Clocks slow down as if a clock is something that moves like a car? It isn't travelling. There's no slow or fast or up or down to it. We say the day went quickly but we know it didn’t go anywhere, and it didn’t go quickly at any speed at all. It isn’t travelling and there is no direction. The only directions that are there, are the directions of the motions that make the events that we use to measure the intervals between the other events. And they’re being counted, incremented, added up. We count regular atomic motion to use as a ratio against some other motion, be it of light, atoms, clocks, or brains. All of these things have motion, both internal motion and travelling motion. And all those motions are real, with real directions in space, ending in the sameness we call entropy. But the time direction isn't real. It's as imaginary as a trip to nine billion.

That's why the past is only in your head and your records. It isn’t a place you can travel to. It’s the places where things moved from. All those places are still here, now. And while the past is the integral of all nows, now lasts for no time at all. Because time needs events,

(I've read as far as I quoted)

Time, would be the time between the events. Without time there would only be events. Now we know that isn't so, as space is defined as the space between objects, such is time defined as the time between events.

You could say that there really is no space, but that space is nothingness and what matters are the objects. You wonder perhaps why I compare time with space, but you know that they are simliar as they behave the same way and are correlated and dependent of eachother. To say the clock slows down isn't saying that it moves through time, but that the time (the empty space between events timewise) has slowed down, "became longer" so to say.

So when we travel very fast, the time between the events become longer, probably the same way that space dilates.

Perhaps this is a clue to why the mass is increasing is that kind of speed?

Thanks for your inspirational idea.

 

[Oli]

You’re sitting there counting beans into the bucket, ping, ping, ping. Now, what is the direction of time? The only direction that is actually there, is the direction of the beans you’re throwing. “Fuller Bucket” is not the direction of time. “More Beans" is not the direction of time. The direction of your time is the direction of your counting, and I could have asked you to count them out of the bucket. There is no “Arrow of Beans”. There is no “Arrow of Time”.

Of course there is, because one bean FOLLOWS the other (whether counted in or out of the bucket). The beans go in sequence and the sequence has a direction.

 

[Farsight]

Cyperium: You could have a space filled with static objects, but if nothing's moving and there's no events, you don't have any time. When the objects move, they can move fast or slow and for a short distance or for a long distance. The time is the measuring of this. There are short distances and long distances, but "short" times and "long" times are really just a figure of speech. Read RELATIVITY+ and follow the essays it links too to get to MASS EXPLAINED for my "toy model" explanation of relativistic mass verses rest mass.

Oli: yes, there is a direction. But it's only an abstract mathematical direction. You can't move along it. It isn't real.

 

[Oli]

It's as real as any other direction the SEQUENCE moves along it. The further along (in time) the more beans. As time increases the number of beans grows.
If we didn't move along in time then we wouldn't age, nothing would grow or decay.
Your problem is that because YOU can't treat/ see time as a linear dimension (e.g. miles) you refuse to believe it has a reality.

 

[Farsight]

It has reality to it. Of course it does. I don't say time doesn't exist. I say it exists like heat exists. I say it's a measure of motion, and like heat, is a derived effect of motion. You can't literally climb to a higher temperature, and you can't literally move along in time. We age because our atoms move. If they didn't, we wouldn't.

You can't see time for what it is because you're stuck with the concept you've grown up with. You just can't believe that this concept could be wrong, and this prevents you examining it. There's something at work here called The Psychology of Disbelief. It's related to the colour perception image below, where squares A and B really are the same shade of grey.

Follow this echalk link and use the "swatch" to check it out.